Obama Thinks Free Enterprise Causes Suffering
An Obama presidency will be a disaster for the economy:
I was just reading an article in the New York Times by Michael Pollen about food and the fact that our entire agricultural system is built on cheap oil. As a consequence, our agriculture sector actually is contributing more greenhouse gases than our transportation sector. And in the mean time, it’s creating monocultures that are vulnerable to national security threats, are now vulnerable to sky-high food prices or crashes in food prices, huge swings in commodity prices, and are partly responsible for the explosion in our healthcare costs because they’re contributing to type 2 diabetes, stroke and heart disease, obesity, all the things that are driving our huge explosion in healthcare costs. That’s just one sector of the economy. You think about the same thing is true on transportation. The same thing is true on how we construct our buildings. The same is true across the board.
Obama believes free enterprise causes human suffering. I’m surprised he didn’t blame vertigo on the agricultural industry. But “fortunately” for us, Comrade Obama will institute an economy wrecking 4 year plan that crushes industry and pushes us toward a greener future. Think about all the glorious unemployment an Obama administration focused on global warming and wealth redistribution will bring us.
Archived in: Barack Obama, EconomyNovember 2, 2008 at 2:21 pm | Trackback
14 comments
OP,
Part of me is hoping(?) for a Messiah win on Tuesday. After four years even the mind numbed obamabots will realize the folly of their ways. (Please note the sarcasm here. When the economy tanks under The One, the blame will lie with (1) BOOOOOSH, and (2) Rush Limbaugh. To liberals, it is never their fault.)
I’ve actually thought about that myself, Code. Electing the George Bushes and Ted Stevenes of the Republican Party hasn’t gotten conservatives anything. I think I might post on this in the near future.
Can I ask for the effective difference between redistribution and reparation?
The content of a Presidential hopeful American’s character which permits an opinion that anyone who builds coal plants is free to do so but the owners should expect bankruptcy via big time taxes is capable also of stating an opinion that white people should expect confiscation of private property via reparation, if the content of his behavior includes honesty.
Maybe this, Helen. Reparations are assumed to be self-limiting where redistribution is permanent. Since no political party has ever tackled the problem of WHEN the administrative state is sufficiently large and funded, the state grows in size and dominance all the time, and its language grows ever more vile and corrupt and deceitful because it provides its definitions and justification.
It stops when the political class is so gorged and indecent that they destroy the means by which the state feeds itself, and something awful happens. Some totalitarian control, that is.
As a small farmer in Virginia, I fail to follow your logic. The interview in question actually increased my support for Obama. It shows he is a reasoned and rational individual that can take complex ideas and synthesize them into a plan that actually makes sense. I’m an independent, religiously conservative, but what passes for conservatism in America today is baloney. We need intelligence, and his ability to tie ag to energy, the economy and healthcare made me flash a big grin. Too few people understand how all these things relate.
I’ve read Pollan’s books and have to say, they’re really enjoyable. He’s done his research, and understands the complexities of American agriculture in a way few outside have done. Farming today is either large-scale and industrial, or small-scale and more attune to real biology. Big agriculture has led to health problems and if you can’t believe that well sorry but you’re just wrong. I hate when pundits and talking heads spout about something they know nothing about. Obama seems to listen, and I’m tired of the “false conservatives” trying to scare everyone by calling this guy a socialist. Whether you realize it or not, wealth is redistributed all the time to put little guys like me out of business.
Eric, do the rest of us owe you something to sustain your agricultural “way of life”? Just asking.
How did Obama “tie ag to energy, the economy and health care”? What does that mean?
What is it about today’s conservatism that’s “baloney”?
Why is someone a “false conservative” for calling an Obama a socialist. They might be right or wrong, but why “false”?
If wealth is redistributed all the time to put “little guys like [you] “out of business”, should wealth be redistributed to KEEP little guys like you IN business? If so, why?
What’s “real biology”. Organic? Why is that better, and more efficient?
To quote you, “I fail to follow your logic”.
Maybe you like Obama because he’s going to redistribute in your direction. If that’s economic justice, why?
Just askin’.
Eric: “Obama seems to listen, and I’m tired of the “false conservatives” trying to scare everyone by calling this guy a socialist.”
Me: Redistribution of wealth is a core tenet of socialism, no? It’s also a principle that Barack Obama clearly embraced over the years including just a few weeks ago with Joe the Plumber. Therefore, what else would you have us call him other than a socialist? That moment of truthfulness is also why Obama surrogates went after Joe so hard. He realized he’d made a serious blunder.
Please also note that at no time has Obama rejected his support for the redistribution of wealth. He merely states that McCain calls it socialism while he calls it “helping the little guy”. It’s the name Obama dislikes, not the principles. It’s like liberals calling illegal aliens undocumented workers. It just sounds nicer, but it does nothing to change the fact that they’re here illegally.
Eric: “Whether you realize it or not, wealth is redistributed all the time to put little guys like me out of business.”
1st, capitalism is the art of creative destruction. Therefore, it is a mistake to assume that your business deserves to exist or would otherwise be rewarded by the market. However, for a moment, let me assume that your statement is true–that is to say that your business is struggling because of wealth redistribution. Why is more gov’t redistribution the answer?
A conservative, false or otherwise, would want to get the gov’t out of the redistribution business to restore market forces and not relying on the Obama Messiah to redistribute back to you. What gov’t gives can also be taken away, not to mention the fact that gov’t allocation of resources is horrendously inefficient.
Eric doesn’t care; he just wants his! But he wants it at someone elses’ expense. That way he’s not selfish.
I agree with what Obama has said, as it is supported by science. Historically, governments have had agricultural policies designed to lower the costs of food for their supporters. Feed your supporters and you shall lead - kind of captures the policy. We then tried to make food less and less expensive - which led to the subsidy (yes - taxes given to the farmers that would produce the most) - which lowered the price of food on the supermarket shelf (but which we pay out of our taxes anyway). One of the problems is that we subsidize things with our taxes that are not necessarily good for our health - like corn (the stuff we feed our beef cattle), sugar, and wheat (rich in carbs). That ends up being the less expensive food - so we eat too much of it - so we get unhealthy (not a balanced diet at all). The other major problem is that the science behind increasing farm production is based on adding fertilizers and pesticides that are made with petrochemicals (natural gas, oil). We use so much non-solar energy, that our food system is now a huge consumer of energy. So, if we want energy independence, we should reduce our need of petrochemical based supplies and return to the Sun as our source. We can do it..it has been proven that we can produce more nutrients (as measured not by pound, but by nutrients per food unit (nutrients in an orange, loaf of bread, glass of milk) if we use a sun based system (read organic food) rather than a petrochemical based system. When you remove the Ag Policy part (the tax subsidy to our food producers) and let the economics work, organic has a better return on investment as measured by cost of producing nutrients we need to stay healthy.
I love things supported by science. Lamarckism, Eugenics and Ptolemaic systems are fascinating, and still have adherents. Even more interesting than all those is the science of the locally-based food supplier and the removal of all those useless eaters sustained through mass-ag.
Hotspur, your are looking at a mission statement leading to a private IPO. That link takes you to a Polish company website with an office in Woodstock NY.
Any subsidy will be greatly welcomed. We are solar based, BUT, petrochemicals are fine for delivering our products.
What tripe, organic of course.
I didn’t hit the link, VW, because I never like what I see. Thanks.
Thanks, my BP n ow is 280/220 after reading that crap.
” It is so important to live a symbiotic life with our planet using the sun and wind…” Gack!
Now I need MY Lisinopril. Pretty soon I’ll be able to get it courtesy of some kid at Subway. What a terrific country!